Alpha Overhaul

[CitySquirrel]

Eh, I never really considered Dragon Age's system deep. But then I'm holding it against older systems like Fallout and Arcanum; the former being fairly diverse yet easily comprehensible and the latter being tantalizingly restrictive for all it offered.

Arcanum was a masterpiece... compared to that, the very enjoyable Dragon Age is merely a YA choose your own adventure novel. I am actually replaying it now, and I keep thinking of Shamus while I play... a game like that wouldn't be possible today because to keep wp with current gen expectations, it would be impossible. Consider trying to render Terant in 3-D. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that Shamus is right... let us dial down the graphics, voice acting, and ratchet up the content.

 

[teebeeohh]

the reason we should buy alpha protocol is pretty much the same as with games like psychonauts and heavy rain: they try new things, in ten years time i don't want to spend my time in games hiding behind chest-high walls, beating up weird monsters in beatuful scenery or do gta in a different scenario

@ callate: you shold wait a few month until you buy they game if bugs turn you off, the game has quite a few and is one of the worst examples of Pc-port i have ever seen(you can't exit menus with ESC, the crosshair moves only after you move the mouse a minimum distance)

 

[Ewyx]

holy shit, a positive word about AP? Spot on Shamus, right now you're the best thing on this website.

 

[Callate]

I don't know about you but Sith Lords was a debacle because it was unfinished story-wise not because of its gameplay bugs.

There are some minor bugs in Alpha Protocol but most of them can be fixed through some editing of the config files. The others appear so rarely it doesn't really matter. In 5 playthroughs I've fallen through the floor exactly one time, 2 minutes away from a checkpoint.

Some people reported bugs in TSL; I didn't experience any. What I did experience was much more what you describe: the last one-quarter to one-third of the game was a skeleton, poorly-conceived dialogue and exposition stretched across cut-and-paste world design and time-filler combat, leading to little in way of a real ending or resolution.

But I'd still describe the problem as "depthing themselves to death". They had more game than they had time to finish, and I'm guessing it was the case in both instances. In TSL, it was actual game development that suffered; in Alpha Protocol, it sounds like play-testing and bug-correction got the short shrift. It may come down to the milestone systems and priorities given to Obsidian by the respective publishers of each game.

Thanks for the heads-up on Alpha Protocol. It does sound like I'll give it a playthrough at some point, after I've cleared my desk of other projects.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I sometimes think New Vegas will be good, but then I remember that Obsidian is making it. Obsidian's Bugs + Fallout 3's buggy engine = A game that won't even make it mast the main menu before it CTDs.

 

[Thanatos5150]

Rebecca

Rebecca did an Alpha Protocol song? Where?

 

[Suskie]

Y'know, I completely agree with this article. There are a thousand things wrong with Alpha Protocol. I would NEVER recommend it at full price, and I wouldn't blame anyone for hating it. Yet I consider it perhaps the most flawed masterpiece I've ever played for the reasons you've highlighted. It should have been the next Deus Ex, and it comes damn close.

 

[Yossarian1507]

The leader of Cult of Alpha Protocol Fans thanks you Shamus for spreading a good word about this game.

AP is exactly the game I was waiting for. The game that actually made your decisions count. This is finally the game that made me think 'lol, this game actually remembers my lone dialog choice made about 3/4 of the game before.' Even those slight changes changes, like a Moscow informant mentioning your previous operations in Rome (or not, if you went to Moscow before Rome!) is worth at least a smile for developers for thinking of everything.

Those are details. But combined with a really interesting and entertaining story with plenty of AWESOME plot twists (Conversation with Omen after that boss battle in Taipei anyone?), great dialog and perk system made it a game that gave me more fun than Mass Effect 2.

Bioware gameplay mechanic + Obsidian plot making mechanics = the best RPG possible.

 

[Moriarty]

and there's even a steam sale going on right now...

damn you people, stop tempting me! I can't buy your stuff, I gotta safe money for a new pc first

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

this is spot on

i got alpha protocol because i tend to like obsidian despite there bugs (i dont give a care as long as i can progress through the game)

you hit it spot on, its a greatly enjoyable game and only deserved a few nicks here and there in the score, which should have been briefly mentioned, not HORDED upon by all the reviewers

 

[xerzewatt]

Thank God that at least the people in Escapist have some functioning brain cells. First Yahtzee made a half-good review and now Shamus wrote these. It is clear that Alpha Protocol is the game if you want to experience something more than Halo clone and I am proud of having that experience 1,5 times for now. Even the ridiculous boss fights and stupid hacking mini game (on PC at least) can`t ruin it.

 

[Therumancer]

I myself also enjoyed Alpha Protocol despite the mediocre reviews. I consider it a reasonably successful game, hope for a sequel, and think Obsidian deserves a bit more credit than they have been getting.

I expect "New Vegas" to be all kinds of awesome, because I'd imagine their polish-related issues won't be as big a deal given that they are using an established engine (Oblivion/Fallout 3) and seem to have had plenty of time with this one.

 

[Shadeovblack]

The best RPGs are Rougelikes.



now a fallout rougelike, that would be awesome.

 

[UnusualStranger]

So, Alpha protocol is a pretty broken game, huh? That is too bad. You would think in this day people could make sure that things were not having glitch problems that could possibly break an experience.

Though back on topic....Choice has always been an interesting thing to me. In KOTOR 2, my favorite part was when you first ran into Atris. You could choose to stir up old wounds, and start an argument, or perhaps avoid the conflict, and talk sensibly and good, or be a threatening ass all the way through. It ultimately didn't effect much, but it was interesting to see how things always turned out. Push the fight too far, and she just pushes you off, pissed at you.

Though, I have always held that fallout did the best in its people measuring scale. When you act like an ass in a town, people don't much care for you IN THAT TOWN. Rather than doing a few bad things in a town, and it chasing you all over the place until you "Rescue ten Kittens" to quote from the article.

Interesting times though. At the end there, saying how voice acting and graphics have eaten away at games. Perhaps things were better back in the day, because people didn't care as much about such things.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

You're in luck Shamus: Obsidian announced that they're working on a patch for AP.

Here's the link: http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/98401-gb-feature-obsidians-plans-for-alpha-protocol-patches-and-dlc.html

At least they'll be able to actually release a patch this time. When they made KOTOR 2 and had to cut content, they went and asked Lucasarts if they could release the content in a large patch, but the fuckheads refused to let it happen.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

I'm not going to say alpha protocol was a terrible game.

I'm going to say that every good thing it did was matched with at least two bad things. Actions having consequences (beyond filling up a little bar) is pretty much the holy grail of gaming at this point. What few games that did them well will forever be placed on a pedestal and held up as examples of "this is how you do that."

But very few games execute this concept well and most people haven't even played one.

The problem is the mainstream. Most people, when they play modern games, are seeking an hour or two a day of vicarious wish fulfillment (or ego masturbation, as I like to call it). They want their character to be without flaws, who goes around beating up all the bad guys and getting all the chicks. Actions having real consequences would throw this entire design philosophy out the window.

Using mass effect 2 as an example; The entire game is a build up to a "suicide mission." Which is a non-existent concept in gaming. I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't even play the game if there was any realistic possibility of failure or losing squad members. But since most people ace the suicide mission (apart from one or two "random" deaths mostly caused by missing the fact mordin is not leadership material!), the illusion of risk becomes paper thin. Now... if most playthroughs looked like this [http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/1165725], we'd have something to talk about. This guy spent countless hours sabotaging the game in every way possible to kill every character possible. The fact he had to work exponentially harder to get a bad outcome from a suicide mission should bother the shit out of everyone. But its a measurement of everything wrong with current game design. You don't earn anything. You don't accomplish anything. Everything must be easy enough for the average person to stumble through, else you run the risk of alienating your bread and butter, the LCD. "[They] play games to have fun! Punishments aren't fun!"

 

[oranger]

That said, I myself prefer the "leveling up" meaning. But why can't we have both, like with Dragon Age? A deep leveling system and that "role playing", all in one.

Eh, I never really considered Dragon Age's system deep. But then I'm holding it against older systems like Fallout and Arcanum; the former being fairly diverse yet easily comprehensible and the latter being tantalizingly restrictive for all it offered.

what ever happened to arcanum style gameplay? after fallout 2 it just kinda...disappeared.

 

[high_castle]

I think Alpha Protocol has a lot going for it in terms of roleplaying, but the actual gameplay is pretty faulty. I found myself wanting to skip through to the bits of the game where you actually make decisions and choices, leaving the boss fights and combat-intensive areas behind. Then there was the fact that the endgame glitched out so badly it broke the game.

All in all, I have this fascinating love-hate relationship with the game. For once, a game actually delivers on all its "there will be consequences for every action" hype. And some of the choices are morally gray and require you to make them in limited time. Plus, there are plenty of branching storylines. Obsidian has really captured the soul of a good RPG. Unfortunately, that soul resides in the body of a paraplegic, as this game is unforgivably broken. I'd like other developers to take a look at what Obsidian's done right, but you can't start a revolution around a badly bugged game.

 

[nik3daz]

After reading this, my interest is being piqued. I haven't played an RPG for a while. Mass Effect (1) was my last one and that was just plain silly when it came to decisions. Everything was too localized.

I think I'm gonna take a look at this just to see if branching gameplay paths (or at least some consequences to your actions) are starting to come in properly.

 

[Lucifer dern]

alpha protocol got way badder rap then it desserved... i really enjoyed it! itsthe ONLY game i have ever played to have this kind of system work. the dialog needs a bit of sorting out... and the game play was average. what i dont get is fallout was far worse...it had bugs that made it practicly implaybel and the shooting was so boring that it felt like they put vat in to cover it up...yet it got goty...this game does one thing perfictly, it was rushed out broken and unfinished so the team could go work on something else, but it does the interlaying changing evolving story like never before. and for that it deserves alot more then the rap its getting...